Burnt Orange Report

Here's an idea: stress that making abortions rare must involve community action. The key to preventing abortions is to build strong support networks for women and to rethink community mores about comprehensive birth control and sex education.

One thing we could do is to build on upon current federal funding for community-based and faith-based initiatives like women's shelters, medical care for pregnant women, etc.

Another idea I think we should develop is a universal basic income, or a guaranteed family income. Which while only tangentially related to abortion, it will definitely ease some of the economic pressures on young women that are one (among many) causes of abortions. Is it merely a coincidence that young women, the group most likely to make minimum wage, is also the group with the highest abortion rates? I think not!

Just to impact my previous point, here is some data:

http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=Women%27s+Health&subcategory=Abortion+Statistics&topic=Abortions+by+Age+Group

56% of induced abortions are chosen by women aged 20-29.

I really appreciate the feedback all of this is getting, and I have been meaning to do a follow up post. To begin, I never said I was "switching sides"- I'm not pro-life. But as it stands I'm not sure that I'm pro-choice. I'm confused, I'm questioning, I'm testing the limits of my beliefs to see if they are right and hold up to real scrutiny.

Right now I see a vast amount of reason on both positions, but not because of the arguments brought forth by their respective camps. Life is at the core of this issue- if embryos aren't alive, then who cares if abortion is rare? That's like saying that haircuts should be safe, legal and rare. Yes, yes and why? Hair has no moral value, neither would an unliving embryo. If, however, it is alive- based not on divisive religious issues but on science, reason, etc.- then "choice" has no place in the discussion because no one has the choice to end another's life. Perhaps it is something in between, and that's what I'm questioning.

But we need a debate in this country devoid of all the contention. If the pro-life crowd is (unwittingly) correct, then abortion must be outlawed. If the pro-choice crowd is right, then all the limitations on abortion should be ended immediately. If neither is right, we should find a new way of thinking of the issue. I'm hoping to spark that here.

Thanks for the comments (with some exceptions) and let's keep the debate going.

At different levels - both Jose & Susan Culp from the previous post are correct. Hence the conclusion, abortions should be safe, legal, accessible, and rare. We should all work to make each of those Four adjectives a reality through education and helping people not be in the position of an unwanted pregnancy in the first place. (Again, an "unwanted pregnancy" has two components: less pregnancies and making those that occur more "wanted" by having people be prepared for them, financially, emotionally. etc)

Have some compassion, Mr. Dobbs.

You said: "Life is at the core of this issue- if embryos aren't alive, then who cares if abortion is rare?"

I agree completely with Byron when he says, "I am 100% pro-choice and I believe that abortion is an issue ... for the woman, her partner, her doctor and her God." Abortion should be safe, legal, accesible and rare, and yes even if as you say "embryos arent alive." We are still talking about a girl, a teenager, a lady, a woman who must go through an often, if not always, emotional time in her life when making the decision. Women who choose, for whatever reason it may be, to have an abortion need our support as a society. It is a hard decision that she will likely never forget, but the decision she has made, so even for those of us who do not believe abortion is killing a life, we would still like to see abortion rare, and hope that we all help to take steps in that direction.

And really, why is it always men that bring up the debate and try to tell us we are killing machines? Really...

Thank you Byron...

Andrew:

Thanks for posting your thoughts on this topic. I myself have grown increasingly uncomfortable with my previous pro-choice stance as I get older and have kids of my own. From my first awareness of the issue, until rather recently I was solidly in the pro-choice camp. At 41 years old, I grew up in the late 70s when abortion was frankly not nearly as big of an issue as it is today. I was a Senior in HS when Fast Times at Ridgemont High came out and the abortion scene in that movie was quite accurate for the times.

However in the past 5 years I've gotten married and begun to re-evaluate how I feel, partly because my wife, who is more liberal than me on just about every issue except abortion, is staunchly pro-life. She is Chilean and Catholic and therefore comes from quite a different political tradition. But it is simply a cut and dried moral issue for her. She is also a family practice medical resident and has a lot of OB patients so the issue is more than theoretical for her.

As a biologist I discount all the religious and philosophical discussions about when life begins. Strictly speaking, each human life stands at the end of an unbroken cycle reaching back billions of years to the first origins of life on this planet. The human life cycle has two stages, a haploid single cell stage (sperm and eggs) and a dominant diploid stage. In some species the haploid species happens to be dominant (fungi, algae, some mosses). Some species have more than two life stages. For example, insects which have a single cell haploid stage and both larval and adult diploid stages. In all cases, life does not start from non-living material. It is an unbroken cycle reaching back into the distant past.

Where do I stand now? Mostly just sick of the hypocrisy from both sides. The hypocrisy from the right who claim to value life and children while at the same time promoting the most family-unfriendly and child-unfriendly policies anywhere in the developed world. And the hypocrisy from the feminist pro-choice activists who would not grant men the same choice about whether to become a parent as they would grant women. But mostly I'm tired of the excessive emphasis placed on abortion by both sides. In terms of a political issue, abortion doesn't even make my top-20 list of issues that I'm personally concerned about. And I'm tired of how it keeps squirting to the forefront to the exclusion of what I view to be far more important issues such as childcare, education, the environment, healthcare, economics, transportation, urban planning, etc. etc. etc.

But in the end, I tend to agree with the philosophy that the best way to eliminate abortions is to make them unnecessary.

Here is what the official Democratic position should be.

* We are opposed to criminalization of woman's reproductive rights.
* We are opposed to backdoor criminalization of woman's reproductive rights through the implementation or onerous regulation.
* We are opposed to laws that would require a scared young girl to ask either her rapist or a judge in the guise of parental notification.
* People who are using intimidation and threats of violence to restrict woman's options regarding their reproductive rights are terrorists.
* People who are using intimidation and threats of violence to restrict woman's options regarding their reproductive rights, and those who offer them material support, should be pursued to the fullest extent of the law, including the PATRIOT act.

Not one step back.

One more fact of life about the anti-woman's rights folks on abortion.

They lie about their motivations (except for the Catholic Church which admits it).

The Catholic Church opposed abortion long before they considered a fetus a life.

Agustine opposed it because he felt that it was immoral to separate sex and procreation.

This is their ultimate goal. Is not just to take down Roe v. Wade, but to take down Eisenstadt v. Baird (contraception to unmarried couples), and Griswold v. Connecticut (any right to contraception).

At the core of this movement are people who are intent on making Darwin illegal and inflicting a TaliBaptist theocracy on the US.

Again, not one step back.

When you are in a sleigh being chased by wolves, you throw them a cookie. You don't stop to bake them a cake.

We cannot afford the luxury or nuance and philosophical hand wringing.

The A-bomb has exploded all over this blog! Personally, I agree with Byron that abortion is really a matter between a woman, her spouse/partner, her doctor, and her God (if she believes in one). But I can see where many people made the assumption that Andrew was coming out as a pro-lifer. He certainly used much of the terminology and rhetoric of that lobby.

With all these definitions of biology running around, one that I have not seen mentioned is the definition of a parasite. A parasite is an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of the host. While a fertilized egg is alive biologically, it is only a potential human life until several things happen to it. It first needs to embed successfully in the uterus. Then it needs to grow and develop without being expelled in a miscarriage (or spontaneous abortion). Eventually, it needs to be born. Before that thoug, I tend to look at viability as the moment that potential human life becomes actual human life where the fetus gets certain rights to continue growing. Before that point (which I understand keeps getting earlier and earlier with techonology...in which case, I say 'so be it.'), the fetus is nothing more than a parasite on the host. Just as no one should be forced to donate organs, blood, or other body parts or to sustain the life of other parasites in the body, neither should the mother be forced to carry a child she does not wish to carry.

I find it interesting that the most passionate posts are from fellow men, who can never know what it means to be pregnant and carry a child to term. Abortion may be a moral issue, but the law should largely stay out it.

Jason above gives a point of view that is very similar to my own. The question boils down to viability for me, and if a fetus is not viable outside the womb, than it is not a life which is entitled to lawful protection. I've always thought of it as the same as organ transplants. Yes, your liver or kidney is composed of living tissue, but it will not survive outside the body.
I'm sure there are many here who will view this as a gross over-simplification of things, which in some ways it is, but it's my viewpoint, and I'm entitled to it. In the end, I beleive the woman who is pregnant is entitled to make her own decision, not a Congressperson, a state legislator, or a judge.

Byron,
Why should there be less abortions? If abortion doesn't intentionally take the life of an innocent human being - why should there be less of them? I've have yet to encounter a single pro-choice person that can answer that question logically. If abortion does intentionally take the life of an innocent human being - are there other acts of intentionally killing innocent human beings that you think should be legal?

Why isn't abortion an ideal solution? If it doesn't kill a human being then it actually seems like a fairly good solution to unplanned pregnancy. According to pro-choice organizations - abortion is physically safer than childbirth and we can all see that paying $400 for an abortion is cheaper than raising a child. So what is your reason for stating that abortion isn't an ideal solution?

Abortion is more expensive, and more dangerous than any other form of modern birth control.

It's still safer than the most benign pregnancy, but for society to use abortion as a primary means of birth control, as Rumania did in the 1960s is simply bad social policy.

Is that clear enough for you?

Matthew,
Actually it isn't very clear. That's a good reason to try to reduce unintended pregnancies not a good reason to try to reduce abortions. Abortions take place after an unintended pregnancy has already begun - why limit abortions (on unintended pregnancies) if abortions are cheaper and safer than childbirth.

I can understand why pro-choicers want to reduce unintended pregnancies but I can't understand why they want to reduce abortions - especially if abortions don't take the lives of innocent human beings.

Disengenuous Jivin J.

Your argument is like saying why require safety belts, when speed limits prevent accidents, which is the preferred solutions.

The objective is not to reduce unwanted pregnancies, it is to reduce the number of unwanted children.

There are a number of ways to get there, some are more efficient.

Matthew,
So then you've proven my point. You don't really want to limit abortions (abortion kills the unwanted children - it doesn't prevent them from existing) - you want to limit unplanned pregnancies which will in turn probably limit abortions. That's a great goal - but don't try to claim you want to limit abortions when you really don't care if there are 1.3 million abortions a year.

You've yet to show why after birth control (pill, contraceptives) hasn't worked or isn't used - why abortion should be reduced - it seems like a good solution for those unplanned pregnancies if there isn't a child involved. Asserting that birth control is better than abortion doesn't show why we should reduce abortions - it shows why there should be more birth control but it does nothing to show why there should be less abortions. That is the conudrum for the pro-choicers who wants to limit abortion.

If you want to use an analogy - at least try to explain it or compare it instead of merely asserting it as the same.

You are being purposely obtuse.

The statement is as follows:

Unwanted babies should be minimized.

Abortion is the least efficient way to get there.

Therefore, we must make sure that people who do not wish to have babies avail themselves to better methods of preventing unwanted babies.

FWIW, you are simply spouting pro-criminalization strawman bullshit.

Matthew,
Abortion is the least efficent way? It may cost more than birth control but abortion is actually very efficent at stopping unwanted births/ending the lives of unborn children after pregnancy has occurred. Your only reason for why abortion should be limited so far is that it isn't as efficent as birth control - which is true but that isn't a reason why there should be fewer abortions because abortions occur after birth control isn't used or is used and fails.

Your above statement again proves my point - you don't necessarily want fewer abortions - you just want more women using birth control.

For example,
Car accident deaths should be minimized.

Seat belts don't reduce car accidents deaths as much as speed limits (according to you above)

Therefore the wearing of seat belts should be minimized.

It makes absolutely no sense. If according to you reducing unwanted births is a good thing (and abortion isn't a bad thing - just inefficent) then something that reduces unwanted births (abortion) should also be a good thing even if it isn't as efficent as birth control. It makes more sense to be promoting both and increasing both since they both do a good thing according to you. Promote birth control for women who don't want to be pregnant and promote abortion for women who have unwanted pregnancies.

Here's a way of solving this - should abortions be minimized on women who are already pregnant and who don't want their child?

Strawman? - I'm taking your direct quotes - do you even know what a strawman is? - you just can't come up with a good reason for why there should be fewer abortions without admitting that abortion kills an innocent human being.

No one knows what it's like to be up on the pedestal and in this "hot seat", unless you have either been a patient or dr. of abortion. The "right to lifer's" are ignorant to other people's personal situations and/or feelings-beliefs; I have an abusive mother who chooses to stay estranged, a father who rejected me since being 3 yrs old, no siblings, or any other "blood" related support system. I am educated, responsible, but always find myself with men like my father; manipulators who show me a nice side at first, but only to move in with their control or emotional abuse. I have a low self esteem level, the absense of a decent support system, and find that I always dedicate myself 100% to this man and think that he should reciprocate in the same manner; unfortunatly these men are users and can't be depended on in the end. My last relationship had ADD, Anxiety, Depression ... lacked taking responsibility for any and everything that he ever did or does. I thought I was going crazy; he'd dissappear for 6 mos and then stay for 6 mos as though he forgot I ever existed. This last time he promised to control the birth control on his end since I had been by myself and temporarily stopped taking my birth control pills after 10 yrs, but one night he went against what we had agreed. It only happened once and his response was "I wanted to see if I could still reproduce". I found out I was pregnant, missed two weeks of my newly started return to college, and was sick non stop through my 7th week when I saught an abortion. I was so betrayed that this man who promised me the world if only I did this or that and his latest ploy was this (baby). I stayed home by myself not wanting to move for 2 weeks straight and he appeared twice and that was it. It was his game to control, not genuine feelings or words that he meant to follow through with. I am almost 30 and want a child now, but knew there was no way that I could ever support this child on my college loans, nor did I ever want to raise a child on my own, like my mother raised me; in poverty and isolated from the world leading to my social and general depression as an adult. I know I have to take care of myself first, before a child will be able to enjoy a life on earth. I kept the abortion to myself; only my partner knew; he threatened to kidnap and hold me until I delivered "his" child; it scared me and I was forced to go by myself to the dr. appt. The nurses and dr. are people of much compassion and understanding. With them I felt a little less isolated; I actually felt almost like I bonded with them in a stange way; instead of bonding with a mate during child birth it was the opposite. These caregivers should be given a lot of credit; everyday they risk something to do this for those of us who have to make this difficult choice in our lifes. There need to be more support groups for people who seek abortion, it is only hurting us to keep it quiet.